MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153730515 · doi:10.1017/s1473550412000298

Fossils and astrobiology: new protocols for cell evolution in deep time

2012· article· en· W2153730515 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Martin D. Brasier, David Wacey

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Astrobiology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbiogenic petroleum originGeologic recordPaleontologyTree of life (biology)AstrobiologyEvolutionary biologyGeologyEcologyBiologyPhylogenetic tree

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The study of life remote in space has strong parallels with the study of life remote in time. Both are dependent on decoding those historic phenomena called ‘fossils’, here taken to include biogenic traces of activity and waste products. There is the shared problem of data restoration from incomplete data sets; the importance of contextual analysis of potentially viable habitats; the centrality of cell theory; the need to reject the null hypothesis of an abiogenic origin for candidate cells via morphospace analysis; the need to demonstrate biology-like behaviour (e.g., association with biofilm-like structures; tendency to form clusters and ‘mats’; and a preference for certain substrates), and of metabolism-like behaviour (e.g., within the candidate cell wall; within surrounding ‘waste products’; evidence for syntrophy and metabolic cycles; and evidence for metabolic tiers). We combine these ideas into a robust protocol for demonstrating ancient or extra-terrestrial life, drawing examples from Earth's early geological record, in particular from the earliest known freshwater communities of the 1.0 Ga Torridonian of Scotland, from the 1.9 Ga Gunflint Chert of Canada, from the 3.4 Ga Strelley Pool sandstone of Australia, and from the 3.46 Ga Apex Chert also of Australia.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of AstrobiologySame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207